zlatkob Posted April 3, 2010 Share #21 Posted April 3, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've posted a few on my blog today: link. The first photo was made with a 5D2, the rest with an M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 Hi zlatkob, Take a look here M9 Wedding pics?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jsjxyz Posted April 3, 2010 Share #22 Posted April 3, 2010 My cuzz's wedding shot with M9 and Noct Onny's Wedding - a set on Flickr Jerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted April 3, 2010 Share #23 Posted April 3, 2010 I've posted a few on my blog today: link. The first photo was made with a 5D2, the rest with an M9. Hey Zlatko--I didn't know you got an M9! Nice work and congratulations! What lenses are you shooting with and how do you like so far? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted April 3, 2010 Share #24 Posted April 3, 2010 Hi Jamie, thanks! Just the 35 lux, one of your favorites. So far, so good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haribo Posted April 3, 2010 Share #25 Posted April 3, 2010 Taken with the M8. ZOOM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
percepts Posted April 3, 2010 Author Share #26 Posted April 3, 2010 Ahhh--finally your previous post makes sense What you're looking at in a lot of situations is simply the screen preparation of the file; there's also a lot of styles of photography out there right now that cripple the file to make up for printing and display issues The overuse of a high-pass filter comes directly to mind. The M9 has almost 13 stops at low ISOs with the right RAW processor and about 8, evidently, at 2500. Since I'd normally only use ISO 2500 in high contrast situations, the shadows are going to be buried anyway (it's the same for my D3 above ISO 3000). There's also the roving blackpoint that Leica has programmed into their DNG right now, and it's clipping black levels in favour of noise. If you shoot uncompressed in edge situations, you'll get more noise but also more detail, evidently. The CCD is inherently higher contrast, too, than a lot of CMOS setups; that's just a post-issue for me. Yes, with all digicams you have to hold the highlights, just like slides, but there's loads of shadow detail in the RAWs. But in short, I have no problem with most wedding situations and an M8, so I don't expect problems with the M9, where there's a couple of levels more to work with... And I can't speak for anyone else, but most of my workflow is compressing EV levels anyway so they fit into a print or display space. A lot of wedding photography I see these days takes shortcuts (you almost have to) but that's not indicative of the camera. (Finally, can't speak for "what you see" on your monitor, etc.... so you really need to see prints IMO. They're fabulous, and not hampered at all) FWIW, I also have a lot of digital M shots on my site and blog, which is in the middle of being replaced with a new design, and they're mixed with Canon and DMR and Nikon shots...) All I can say is that from what I have seen so far I'm not convinced that the M9 has enough dynamic range for my purposes. It may be that people are outputting jpegs rather than uncompressed DNG and losing some dynamic range there but I'm not convinced of that. Still the only images where I see high quality are low contrast subjects. Problem is that I don't know what I'm really looking at on screen. There should be no problem preparing screen images which aren't blocked or blown out if the camera can collect the data that way. So either the camera can't do it or the post processing styling is doing it. It's just curious that I haven't seen a single normal contrast subject where it isn't happening. Maybe digicam users are so used to that being the norm that that is what is expected. And I'm not knocking digicams. I would like to get one for colour print workflow without scanning but not at the expense of losing highlight or shadow detail such that I always get a heavily stylised result due to the camera rather than my choice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted April 3, 2010 Share #27 Posted April 3, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) ........ I would like to get one for colour print workflow without scanning but not at the expense of losing highlight or shadow detail such that I always get a heavily stylised result due to the camera rather than my choice. Forget what you are seeing on screen. The only reliable test for your stated purpose is to try printing from the file. A whole different world. And quite different from film printing. It has it's own look. P.S. Your post processing will still be a factor whatever you do, so that is up to you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
percepts Posted April 3, 2010 Author Share #28 Posted April 3, 2010 Forget what you are seeing on screen. The only reliable test for your stated purpose is to try printing from the file. A whole different world. And quite different from film printing. It has it's own look. P.S. Your post processing will still be a factor whatever you do, so that is up to you. Problem is that would be a £5000 test unless I can get to see some actual prints of what I'm looking for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riccis Posted April 4, 2010 Share #29 Posted April 4, 2010 I've posted a few on my blog today: link. The first photo was made with a 5D2, the rest with an M9. Great work, mate! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted April 4, 2010 Share #30 Posted April 4, 2010 {snipped} It's just curious that I haven't seen a single normal contrast subject where it isn't happening. Maybe digicam users are so used to that being the norm that that is what is expected. And I'm not knocking digicams. I would like to get one for colour print workflow without scanning but not at the expense of losing highlight or shadow detail such that I always get a heavily stylised result due to the camera rather than my choice. Ok, you've got me. Please define what you mean by "normal contrast".... I've got thousands of shots with the M8 that have both shadow and highlight detail, and I'm happy to show you any of them. Though I don't have anything yet from a wedding with the M9 (it's that new) I can assure you it's better than the M8. Just because many things are stylized these days doesn't mean they have to be Of course, as with any other photographic system, you still have to fit things into 9-14 stops depending on your ISO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted April 4, 2010 Share #31 Posted April 4, 2010 Hi Jamie, thanks! Just the 35 lux, one of your favorites. So far, so good. Glad it's working for you, and glad you've got a 35 Lux, too...it's a treat! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
percepts Posted April 4, 2010 Author Share #32 Posted April 4, 2010 Ok, you've got me. Please define what you mean by "normal contrast".... I've got thousands of shots with the M8 that have both shadow and highlight detail, and I'm happy to show you any of them. Though I don't have anything yet from a wedding with the M9 (it's that new) I can assure you it's better than the M8. Just because many things are stylized these days doesn't mean they have to be Of course, as with any other photographic system, you still have to fit things into 9-14 stops depending on your ISO. By normal contrast I mean a normal outdoor bridal scene on an overcast day. Not bright sunshine. So I would expect to be able to see some detail in the grooms dark suit and the brides white dress with no blocking up or blown detail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted April 4, 2010 Share #33 Posted April 4, 2010 By normal contrast I mean a normal outdoor bridal scene on an overcast day. Not bright sunshine. So I would expect to be able to see some detail in the grooms dark suit and the brides white dress with no blocking up or blown detail. trust me! That is a breeze for the M9. Incidentally, that scenario is no exclusive to wedding situations. Being familiar with both, I would rate stage/theatrical work as more 'taxing' than any wedding situation I have experienced in a lifetime. The M8 and M9 'gobble up' the dynamic range presented by these environments. The limiting factor is the photographer, not the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
percepts Posted April 4, 2010 Author Share #34 Posted April 4, 2010 trust me! That is a breeze for the M9. Incidentally, that scenario is no exclusive to wedding situations. Being familiar with both, I would rate stage/theatrical work as more 'taxing' than any wedding situation I have experienced in a lifetime. The M8 and M9 'gobble up' the dynamic range presented by these environments. The limiting factor is the photographer, not the camera. OK I'll invoice you if it can't do it:D Well yes it seems like high digital ISO is just like pushing film. You get a shorter useable dynamic range which means your expsoure needs to be spot on and if the subject range is too great something gets lost depending on what you expose for, shadows or highlights. I think I'd be favouring highlights and let shadows go if necessary. But I don't want to be doing that for wedding images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted April 4, 2010 Share #35 Posted April 4, 2010 Percepts, I may be way off your wavelength, but it seems you are doing too much theorizing and imagining problems and jumping hurdles before they are put before you. Anything you (or I) did with film works a whole lot better, wrt to dynamic range, in digital regardless of the subject scenario. Seriously, Think the real problem with Leica as a wedding tool is not its dynamic range but its 'real' compatibility or flash freindliness. Personally, I use very little flash these days, contrary to my past, but when needled, flash on Leicas is a bit ergonomically clutsy. However, they do wonders without flash with the right lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted April 4, 2010 Share #36 Posted April 4, 2010 overcast day (M8), M9 should be be similar or better Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted April 4, 2010 Share #37 Posted April 4, 2010 Anyone got any M9 wedding pics I could have a look at? Thinking of getting an M9 for some wedding work but not sure its the right tool for the job. The question to answer is whether a rangefinder is the right tool for your job. It is for me. I shoot one camera one lens and I never use flash. The dynamic range question is best answered by a test shot processed in your workflow, in your ISO, in your country etc. I don't mind shooting weddings on M8 or M9. Cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted April 4, 2010 Share #38 Posted April 4, 2010 Last gallery was May 2009. M9 hadn't come out by then. I have some M9 wedding shots from August I can dig out... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
percepts Posted April 4, 2010 Author Share #39 Posted April 4, 2010 I have some M9 wedding shots from August I can dig out... I thought the M9 was released in September. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
percepts Posted April 4, 2010 Author Share #40 Posted April 4, 2010 overcast day (M8), M9 should be be similar or better Well I can see that there is plenty of detail in that image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.